{"id":3176,"date":"2013-11-01T14:51:16","date_gmt":"2013-11-01T13:51:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/?p=3176"},"modified":"2016-06-08T07:59:53","modified_gmt":"2016-06-08T06:59:53","slug":"award-1214","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/2013\/11\/01\/award-1214\/","title":{"rendered":"Award 1214"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><strong>Award 1214 \u2013 Cargo insurance \u2013 Sugar cargo \u2013 Defaulting buyer \u2013 Extended storage \u2013 \u201cAll risks except\u2026\u201d policy \u2013 Appraisement of loss suffered by seller. <\/strong>Following a buyer\u2019s failure to pay, goods were stored in sheds in an African port. After lengthy legal actions, the seller was able to recover and resell the goods which, in the meantime, had become impaired and depreciated. The cargo insurers declined to indemnify the seller on the grounds that the origin of the damage occurred before the policy was concluded. The arbitral Tribunal considered that, even if the rule of good faith is of the essence in matters of insurance, it was not proved that the assured tried to conceal the situation he had to face. It decided that, the proof of the loss being ascertained, the guarantee \u201call risks except\u2026\u201d should cover all risks which were not of commercial or financial nature, therefore, the depreciation was the loss capable of being compensated, but not the storage costs, the origin of which was a commercial dispute.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Award 1214 \u2013 Cargo insurance \u2013 Sugar cargo \u2013 Defaulting buyer \u2013 Extended storage \u2013 \u201cAll risks except\u2026\u201d policy \u2013 Appraisement of loss suffered by seller. Following a buyer\u2019s failure to pay, goods were stored in sheds in an African port. After lengthy legal actions, the seller was able to recover and resell the goods<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3176","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3176","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3176"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3176\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3177,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3176\/revisions\/3177"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3176"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3176"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.arbitrage-maritime.org\/CAMP-V3\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3176"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}